Whew ~ I just scanned all of the pages in this thread and it is a long one!

My credentials are as follows: DPhil, Oxford OT Theology; MAT Fuller Seminary; Religion and Philosophy BA, Northwest University. I currently research, write and teach on-line for Fuller. Because I have traveled a lot in the course of my education and continue to travel a lot, I now purchase any books possible in electronic format. I teach language courses that include a Logos component and we use many (although not all) electronic resources for that. Mind you this is largely a practical matter: I am 5'4'' and prefer to carry cameras to hard bound books on journeys

That being said, I am perfectly happy for anyone, anywhere, anytime to read the Bible in any available version (except my students don't get to use the Amplified Bible). This thread reminds me of some of the 'food critical' stuff on FB in a way. My reply there and here as well is 'Only in a food-rich (text-rich) country could we afford to have this conversation. Elsewhere, folks are too busy trying to acquire three meals a day to worry about (insert topic here).

Likewise, I am thankful to live in a day and time where such rich resources are available. In any case, of course one should try to be polite and considerate, but I say: We have a feast: let us join in and celebrate the Lord's goodness towards us.

Elizabeth Hayes said:

Whew ~ I just scanned all of the pages in this thread and it is a long one!

My credentials are as follows: DPhil, Oxford OT Theology; MAT Fuller Seminary; Religion and Philosophy BA, Northwest University. I currently research, write and teach on-line for Fuller. Because I have traveled a lot in the course of my education and continue to travel a lot, I now purchase any books possible in electronic format. I teach language courses that include a Logos component and we use many (although not all) electronic resources for that. Mind you this is largely a practical matter: I am 5'4'' and prefer to carry cameras to hard bound books on journeys

That being said, I am perfectly happy for anyone, anywhere, anytime to read the Bible in any available version (except my students don't get to use the Amplified Bible). This thread reminds me of some of the 'food critical' stuff on FB in a way. My reply there and here as well is 'Only in a food-rich (text-rich) country could we afford to have this conversation. Elsewhere, folks are too busy trying to acquire three meals a day to worry about (insert topic here).

Likewise, I am thankful to live in a day and time where such rich resources are available. In any case, of course one should try to be polite and considerate, but I say: We have a feast: let us join in and celebrate the Lord's goodness towards us.

So, since others don't have the resources we have we should simply hit the big issues and forget the rest?  [:O]

Paul Golder said:

William Gabriel said:

Does your seminary combine the exegesis and preaching in the same class?

I was just making a point that for centuries seminaries have made Biblically astute Pastors, (ie. Greek exegesis), while most have put what most Pastors spend their time doing on the "back burner". Some even to the point of ignoring all the other areas of a Pastors profession. (things like conflict management, organizational budgeting, superintendence concepts, and relational studies, to name a few of the things a Pastor deals with on a daily basis)

Granted this is changing, and I believe that most of the change is good. So, while I would welcome a man that handles well the Greek and Hebrew as a teacher in our church, I would desire a man just as well trained in martial counseling if he were to lead our flock.

How about one trained in the martial arts?  [;)]

 Amen! That's truth and another thing the argument we are having here is one that has been done time and time again. Here is something from 1918. Let's see the writer feels as if seminaries are pushing out Biblically astute Pastors in Greek exegesis?

The Minister and His Greek Testament

J. Gresham Machen

The widening breach between the minister and his Greek Testament may be traced to two principal causes. The modern minister objects to his Greek New Testament or is indifferent to it, first, because he is becoming less interested in his Greek, and second, because he is becoming less interested in his New Testament.

The former objection is merely one manifestation of the well known tendency in modern education to reject the "humanities" in favor of studies that are more obviously useful, a tendency which is fully as pronounced in the universities as it is in the theological seminaries. In many colleges the study of Greek is almost abandoned; there is little wonder, therefore, that the graduates are not prepared to use their Greek Testament. Plato and Homer are being neglected as much as Paul. A refutation of the arguments by which this tendency is justified would exceed the limits of the present article. This much, however, may be said—the refutation must recognize the opposing principles that are involved. The advocate of the study of Greek and Latin should never attempt to plead his cause merely before the bar of "efficiency." Something, no doubt, might be said even there; it might possibly be contended that an acquaintance with Greek and Latin is really necessary to acquaintance with the mother tongue, which is obviously so important for getting on in the world. But why not go straight to the root of the matter? The real trouble with the modern exaltation of "practical" studies at the expense of the humanities is that it is based upon a vicious conception of the whole purpose of education. The modern conception of the purpose of education is that education is merely intended to enable a man to live, but not to give him those things in life that make life worth living.

In the second place, the modern minister is neglecting his Greek New Testament because he is becoming less interested in his New Testament in general—less interested in his Bible. The Bible used to be regarded as providing the very sum and substance of preaching; a preacher was true to his calling only as he succeeded in reproducing and applying the message of the Word of God. Very different is the modern attitude. The Bible is not discarded, to be sure, but it is treated only as one of the sources, even though it be still the chief source, of the preacher's inspiration. Moreover, a host of duties other than preaching and other than interpretation of the Word of God are required of the modern pastor. He must organize clubs and social activities of a dozen different kinds; he must assume a prominent part in movements for civic reform. In short, the minister has ceased to be a specialist. The change appears, for example, in the attitude of theological students, even of a devout and reverent type. One outstanding difficulty in theological education today is that the students persist in regarding themselves, not as specialists, but as laymen. Critical questions about the Bible they regard as the property of men who are training themselves for theological professorships or the like, while the ordinary minister, in their judgment, may content himself with the most superficial layman's acquaintance with the problems involved. The minister is thus no longer a specialist in the Bible, but has become merely a sort of general manager of the affairs of a congregation.

The bearing of this modern attitude toward the study of the Bible upon the study of the Greek Testament is sufficiently obvious. If the time allotted to strictly biblical studies must be diminished, obviously the most laborious part of those studies, the part least productive of immediate results, will be the first to go. And that part, for students insufficiently prepared, is the study of Greek and Hebrew. If, on the other hand, the minister is a specialist—if the one thing that he owes his congregation above all others is a thorough acquaintance, scientific as well as experimental, with the Bible—then the importance of Greek requires no elaborate argument. In the first place, almost all the most important books about the New Testament presuppose a knowledge of Greek: the student who is without at least a smattering of Greek is obliged to use for the most part works that are written, figuratively speaking, in words of one syllable. In the second place, such a student cannot deal with all the problems at first hand, but in a thousand important questions is at the mercy of the judgment of others. In the third place, our student without Greek cannot acquaint himself with the form as well as the content of the New Testament books. The New Testament, as well as all other literature, loses something in translation. But why argue the question? Every scientific student of the New Testament without exception knows that Greek is really necessary to his work: the real question is only as to whether our ministry should be manned by scientific students.

That question is merely one phase of the most important question that is now facing the church—the question of Christianity and culture. The modern world is dominated by a type of thought that is either contradictory to Christianity or else out of vital connection with Christianity. This type of thought applied directly to the Bible has resulted in the naturalistic view of the biblical history—the view that rejects the supernatural not merely in the Old Testament narratives, but also in the Gospel account of the life of Jesus. According to such a view the Bible is valuable because it teaches certain ideas about God and his relations to the world, because it teaches by symbols and example, as well as by formal presentation, certain great principles that have always been true. According to the supernaturalistic view, on the other hand, the Bible contains not merely a presentation of something that was always true, but also a record of something that happened—namely, the redemptive work of Jesus Christ. If this latter view be correct, then the Bible is unique; it is not merely one of the sources of the preacher's inspiration, but the very sum and substance of what he has to say. But, if so, then whatever else the preacher need not know, he must know the Bible; he must know it at first hand, and be able to interpret and defend it. Especially while doubt remains in the world as to the great central question, who more properly than the ministers should engage in the work of resolving such doubt—by intellectual instruction even more than by argument? The work cannot be turned over to a few professors whose work is of interest only to themselves, but must be undertaken energetically by spiritually minded men throughout the church. But obviously this work can be undertaken to best advantage only by those who have an important prerequisite for the study in a knowledge of the original languages upon which a large part of the discussion is based.

If, however, it is important for the minister to use his Greek Testament, what is to be done about it? Suppose early opportunities were neglected, or what was once required has been lost in the busy rush of ministerial life. Here we may come forward boldly with a message of hope. The Greek of the New Testament is by no means a difficult language; a very fair knowledge of it may be acquired by any minister of average intelligence. And to that end two homely directions may be given. In the first place, the Greek should be read aloud. A language cannot easily be learned by the eye alone. The sound as well as the sense of familiar passages should be impressed upon the mind, until sound and sense are connected without the medium of translation. Let this result not be hastened; it will come of itself if the simple direction be followed. In the second place, the Greek Testament should be read every day without fail, Sabbaths included. Ten minutes a day is of vastly more value than seventy minutes once a week. If the student keeps a "morning watch," the Greek Testament ought to be given a place in it; at any rate, the Greek Testament should be read devotionally. The Greek Testament is a sacred book, and should be treated as such. If it is treated so, the reading of it will soon become a source of joy and power.

MJ. Smith said:

supported by history? only if you are selective both in time and location.

I find that my thoughts are best expressed by broad sweeping generalization. [;)]

MJ. Smith said:

Greek ... useful yes, required no

"All one needs is a faithful English version of the Bible and a good dictionary, and he will be equipped for every work in Christ Jesus." ~ Wilbert Webster White 

George Somsel said:

Paul Golder said:

"All one needs is a faithful English version of the Bible and a good dictionary, and he will be equipped for every work in Christ Jesus." ~ Wilbert Webster White 

Needful or advantageous?  It is still wise for those in charge of leading a congregation to know Greek (and Hebrew).

And if we do not have a George or two around how will we KNOW that it is a 'faithful' version?

Dan Francis said:

David Ames said:

George Somsel said:

Paul Golder said:

"All one needs is a faithful English version of the Bible and a good dictionary, and he will be equipped for every work in Christ Jesus." ~ Wilbert Webster White 

Needful or advantageous?  It is still wise for those in charge of leading a congregation to know Greek (and Hebrew).

And if we do not have a George or two around how will we KNOW that it is a 'faithful' version?

Well I am happy enough with the NRSV… traditional yet cognizant of advances in scholarship. I will say most translations have advantages in one way or another, but to quote one preacher who never knew the original languages, The best translation is the one you will read. And I think Billy Graham was right. Even the worst translation I know of will do a pretty good job of sharing the message of gospel (I realize that occasional translations like the NWT will offer a very distorted view of some things, but most translations try to be faithful to the originals within their own parameters).

-Dan

You are basically correct.  It is not necessary to know Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic), but it is helpful.  One can share the message of the gospel using virtually any translation.  As a matter of fact, one can do so without a bible at all, but isn't it easier if you have a bible?  Isn't it even better if you know the original and can explain problems?

Denise said:

This tool differentiates original-language word senses, helping you understand Scripture as its inspired authors intended.

Denise, I'm not familiar with the blizzard of tools Logos offers - which tool are you referring to here?  It sounds interesting.  Thanks!  ~Butters [:)]

George Somsel said:

Dan Francis said:

David Ames said:

George Somsel said:

Paul Golder said:

"All one needs is a faithful English version of the Bible and a good dictionary, and he will be equipped for every work in Christ Jesus." ~ Wilbert Webster White 

Needful or advantageous?  It is still wise for those in charge of leading a congregation to know Greek (and Hebrew).

And if we do not have a George or two around how will we KNOW that it is a 'faithful' version?

Well I am happy enough with the NRSV… traditional yet cognizant of advances in scholarship. I will say most translations have advantages in one way or another, but to quote one preacher who never knew the original languages, The best translation is the one you will read. And I think Billy Graham was right. Even the worst translation I know of will do a pretty good job of sharing the message of gospel (I realize that occasional translations like the NWT will offer a very distorted view of some things, but most translations try to be faithful to the originals within their own parameters).

-Dan

You are basically correct.  It is not necessary to know Greek and Hebrew (and Aramaic), but it is helpful.  One can share the message of the gospel using virtually any translation.  As a matter of fact, one can do so without a bible at all, but isn't it easier if you have a bible?  Isn't it even better if you know the original and can explain problems?

I never meant to imply knowledge ( the more fluent the better) of original languages were not most valuable. 

MJ. Smith said:

George Somsel said:

but isn't it easier if you have a bible?  Isn't it even better if you know the original and can explain problems?

Somehow, I doubt that either are much assistance with the Sentinelese.

You do at least need to get within shouting distance and be able to communicate.  Too bad that Pentecost is so long past.

What if one wanted to follow along the reading of Scripture, in the Greek, using an iPad?

Super Tramp said:

Has anybody considered the division an iPad could cause between the "haves" and the "have nots?"

That's an interesting point. I just heard about a study that Google did the other day, and they seem to think that the world may be hitting the saturation point for connected devices.

The main reason being that those who are not connected cannot afford a data plan.

I would imagine that this would apply to Churches too.

Super Tramp said:

Has anybody considered the division an iPad could cause between the "haves" and the "have nots?"

My wife will not wear a 32 carat diamond necklace or full length mink coat to church because she does not want others to stumble in covetousness.  

Very wise decision; the church is not the place for ostentatiousness.  Take her to a very nice restaurant on a cold winter's night and it will be appropriate.

George Somsel said:

Paul Golder said:

What if one wanted to follow along the reading of Scripture, in the Greek, using an iPad?

OT or NT?  

Both!!!!

George Somsel said:

What if a pig flew through the nave?

It depends. If it were Romanesque, then there would likely be an investigation into a possible miracle. [;)]